Sen. Cruz To President Trump: Sure, I’d Be Willing To Help Overturn The Election
[guest post by Dana]
This week, the Washington Post reported that Sen. Ted Cruz told then-President Donald Trump that he would help with efforts to overturn the 2020 election results:
Sen. Ted Cruz was dining near the Capitol on the evening of Dec. 8, 2020, when he received an urgent call from President Donald Trump. A lawsuit had just been filed at the Supreme Court designed to overturn the election Trump had lost, and the president wanted help from the Texas Republican.
“Would you be willing to argue the case?” Trump asked Cruz, as the senator later recalled it.
“Sure, I’d be happy to” if the court granted a hearing, Cruz said he responded.
The call was just one step in a collaboration that for two months turned the once-bitter political enemies into close allies in the effort to keep Trump in the White House based on the president’s false claims about a stolen election. By Cruz’s own account, he was “leading the charge” to prevent the certification of Joe Biden as president.
An examination by The Washington Post of Cruz’s actions between Election Day and Jan. 6, 2021, shows just how deeply he was involved, working directly with Trump to concoct a plan that came closer than widely realized to keeping him in power. As Cruz went to extraordinary lengths to court Trump’s base and lay the groundwork for his own potential 2024 presidential bid, he also alienated close allies and longtime friends who accused him of abandoning his principles.
As a result of this, the Jan. 6 Committee is very interested in the details of Cruz’s efforts on behalf of Trump:
As [John] Eastman outlined a scenario in which Vice President Mike Pence could deny certifying Biden’s election, Cruz crafted a complementary plan in the Senate. He proposed objecting to the results in six swing states and delaying accepting the electoral college results on Jan. 6 in favor of a 10-day “audit” — thus potentially enabling GOP state legislatures to overturn the result. Ten other senators backed his proposal, which Cruz continued to advocate on the day rioters attacked the Capitol.
The committee’s interest in Cruz is notable as investigators zero in on how closely Trump’s allies coordinated with members of Congress in the attempt to block or delay certifying Biden’s victory. If Cruz’s plan worked, it could have created enough chaos for Trump to remain in power.
U.S. Appeals Court Judge J. Michael Luttig, for whom both Eastman and Cruz clerked, said that he believes that Cruz played a prominent role leading up to the events of Jan. 6 at the U.S. Capitol:
“Once Ted Cruz promised to object, January 6 was all but foreordained, because Cruz was the most influential figure in the Congress willing to force a vote on Trump’s claim that the election was stolen,” Luttig said in a statement to The Post. “He was also the most knowledgeable of the intricacies of both the Electoral Count Act and the Constitution, and the ways to exploit the two.”
In light of this report, it’s just more than a bit rich and tone-deaf to read that Cruz, responding to Nancy Pelosi’s comment about the upcoming midterms (“It is absolutely essential for our democracy that we [Democrats] win. I fear for our democracy if the Republicans were ever to get the gavel”), responded thusly:
“They know they’re gonna lose and Nancy Pelosi’s not gonna go quietly. She’s gonna scream, she’s already preparing to scream the election was stolen. And by the way, what she means by ‘stolen’ is people showed up to vote against Democrats. That’s what stealing the election is. And remember, Democrats don’t believe in democracy.”
C’mon, we can all see that Pelosi didn’t say a word about a stolen election [if Democrats lost]. While Cruz’s statement was a dishonest reading of what Pelosi said, he also conveniently ignored that it is he who has misleadingly “screamed” about the election results and “led the charge” to prevent Joe Biden from being certified as president. And just because Cruz and his Republican cronies pushed the Big Lie about a stolen election and made plans to overturn the results doesn’t mean that Democrats will stoop as low [if they lose the midterms].
Geez, for a really smart guy, he sounds pretty dumb at times.
Hello.Dana (5395f9) — 3/30/2022 @ 12:45 pm
“Sure, I’d be happy to” if the court granted a hearing, Cruz said he responded.
Note the qualification. Is this an actual willingness? Or humoring the idiot, knowing that it will never ever happen.
The rest of it is insane though. If their plan had “worked” it would have resulted in a level of instability unheard of in the United States since at least 1876 and probably 1861. More than one state would be holding secession votes and it’s anyone’s guess what the armed forces would do. Pretty sure life would be hard for the Secret Service.Kevin M (38e250) — 3/30/2022 @ 1:01 pm
U.S. Appeals Court Judge J. Michael LuttigKevin M (38e250) — 3/30/2022 @ 1:04 pm
. Cruz, for whom both Eastman and Cruz clerked
I’ve said before that the only “steal” infolved in the 2020 election was due to changing election rules unlawfully (where it was done unlawfully), increasing the number of likely Democrat voters. By the time election day came around, there was nothing more to be done. The bell could not be unrung. The votes themselves were counted fairly and lawfully.
This whole “audit” thing was just theater.Kevin M (38e250) — 3/30/2022 @ 1:08 pm
I do expect Pelosi and the Democrats to complain about how the Republicans changed voting rules for 2022. They already have done so and will continue to do so. States that have changed rules have been sanctioned by private businesses, such as MLB, after being pressured by Democrat-leaning customers and employees.
But again, the votes cast will be counted fairly. Although I still expect to hear that the election was “stolen.” Who wants to be I’m wrong?Kevin M (38e250) — 3/30/2022 @ 1:12 pm
This why The Donald is a NYC real estate wiz: Trump rents space in everybody’s head and has Cruz renting space up his butt. Probably as warm up there as it is in Cancun, eh Ted?!DCSCA (f4c5e5) — 3/30/2022 @ 1:36 pm
Rafi’s picture should be used for the Wikipedia article on Projection.
But then expecting principles from a man who kisses the ass of the man who insulted his wife and father is a mug’s game. He’s a classic beta weasel, looking for scraps from his master’s table.john (cd2753) — 3/30/2022 @ 1:50 pm
@4 so its ok to decrease the number of likely voters if you can legally get away with it?asset (f0fc43) — 3/30/2022 @ 2:02 pm
@4 so its ok to decrease the number of likely voters if you can legally get away with it?
So, it;s OK to pad the rolls with people you think will vote for you, if you can get away with it?
We have laws about who votes. You have to sign up, tell them who you are, state you are a citizen and where you live, and so so in a timely manner before you vote. Some places allow you to vote 2 months early by mail, others are stricter than that. When the law is changed by someone other than the legislature, it’s unlawful. When it is done in a way that clearly benefits one party, it’s criminal.
Suppose that, a week before the 2024 election, Florida’s governor said that “all absentee votes are invalid” and the state court agreed. You;d be OK by that? Or do you just argue for a ratchet working your way?Kevin M (38e250) — 3/30/2022 @ 2:20 pm
It’s not that the courts (or the governor in places) said “This law is unconstitutional, we strike it down.” It was “We think this law needs to be changed for current circumstances” and that is NOT a court’s or a governor’s power. Even if you want to talk about pandemic emergencies, there is a wide gulf between preventing the spread of disease, and changing the rules for an election. In PA the courts have already ruled that the changes that were made were unlawful (not that it changes the 2020 vote in any way — they “legally [got] away with it”).
But I guess it’s as Rahm Emanuel said “Never let a crisis go to waste.”Kevin M (38e250) — 3/30/2022 @ 2:50 pm
Typical Cruz. Weasel all the way. If the Court grants a hearing. Ten-day delay for an audit.nk (1d9030) — 3/30/2022 @ 3:22 pm
I’m over it.
The headlines last week were “7 hour gap in WH phone logs on Jan. 6” and then Trump loving CNN says:
“According to multiple sources familiar with Trump’s phone behavior and the White House switchboard records, the January 6 log reflects Trump’s typical phone habits. He mainly placed calls through the switchboard when he was in the residence but rarely used it when he was in the Oval Office. The fact the log does not show calls on January 6, 2021, from the Oval Office is not unusual, said the sources, because Trump typically had staff either place calls directly for him on landlines or cell phones. Those calls would not be noted on the switchboard log”
Some people are going to need to find a new hobbysteveg (e81d76) — 4/1/2022 @ 8:07 pm